I work in a library, and we have multiple patrons without houses: it is also often the only place they can access bathrooms, charge phones/other electronics (one patron charges her lantern usually), and sometimes it can be the only place where people know their name and ask about their day/if they are doing okay. When we had to close for the pandemic, one of our biggest concerns was cutting off our patrons who required our services to meet their basic needs. I know some of the librarians were working directly with patrons they knew were vulnerable in order to figure out a way to meet those needs while the library couldn't

I know this is a joke, but I work in a library and just wanted to add this because I think some people don't realize: many libraries will work with people who can't provide an address and do whatever we can to help you access the services. Some have a filler address they use, some use guest cards, etc. If anyone reading this is scared to go to a library because they don't have an address and are afraid of being confronted, please know that most library workers would be happy to help you in any way we can!

So do libraries, usually. They also have complete protection from the elements, air conditioning in the summer/heating in the winter, and bathroom access. Granted, some parks also have bathroom access, but most parks I've seen either have only portapotties or the bathrooms are locked outside of events

Mayo is really good on meatball subs

I'm still stuck on Rhyhorn. I feel you

Isn't this the same case where they fired the officer who first arrived (in the article, the officer on scene who had it under control) because he didn't shoot the suicidal man? They harrased him and fired him because he "didn't protect the other officers" or some bs

Edit: No, my bad, completely different case

Oh I agree. That conversation was the moment I decided I didn't believe in the Church or trust humans to interpret God without adding their own biases to it. I later left the religion entirely, but that's when I mentally checked out of church

Basically his point was that if God wanted women to be priests, he would have made Mary a priest. I said "well he gave her a higher position than priest?" And he said no he didn't, Mary being a priest would have been more important/prestigious. So therefore all women could not be priests. He also implied that the only reason a woman would be given any role was because this was something only a woman could do. Which, again, idk about the God reproductive system, but it feels like an all-powerful being would be able to say fuck that and get a dude pregnant if the being was sexist enough to not want women involved in the process? But that's gay and that specific teacher would probably have spontaneously combusted if I had said that.

I should note, yes, this was after the church sex abuse scandal had made the news, like a couple of years after (I want to say it was late 2013 or 2014?) So the guy absolutely knew about that and still decided even the lowest priest was better than any woman

I mean, probably. Idk much about the history/timeline of biblical revision though, since we weren't allowed to ask about that at CCD because "God's word has always been perfect, the modern translation is just more perfect" or something

Interesting part of the story that a bunch of people seem to forget (or I'm an idiot and misremembering my shitty time in CCD, either or): Mary was also supposedly born of immaculate conception. Which was important, because it meant that she also did not have original sin, and was able to be completely pure when she gave birth to Jesus. Granted, I think that means Mary gave birth to her own brother? I've got no damn clue how Abrahamic God genetics work, and if it's anything like Greek God genetics then it's absolutely fucked

Edit to add: I was raised Roman Catholic, idk if other Christian faiths have this part of the story. I'm also not sure if Roman Catholics have this part of the story, or if the old people who willingly volunteered to teach a bunch of teens about the Bible were just pulling shit out of their asses. Considering one of them once told me that every priest had a more important position in the church than Mary, I don't exactly trust them as a reliable source of religious doctrine

No, sorry. I'm trying to say that atheists use the scientific understanding of the world to form their understanding of the world. When those facts are changed or updated (edit to clarify: as in scientists learn new information about the world) atheists can be just as resistant to that as a religious person can. This is because, in both cases, the person would have to restructure their view of the world in order to match the new information, and both an atheist and a religious person can be stubborn against any form of change

Fair, that's on me for assuming, sorry. You do get how I would read your comment as "atheists are above criticism" though, right?

oh please

I don't read that as someone asking a genuine question. That's absolutely brushing it off and acting like atheists are above criticism

Sure, but I mean, if you found out those electrons were acting upon the droplet of water because they firmly believed it would hurt specifically you, you'd probably be a bit annoyed. Like, who the fuck do those electrons think they are, you know? Maybe you'd just say fuck it, not worth your time or energy to bother with something so insignificant, but maybe you wouldn't.

I agree that, scale wise, your example is more accurate, but I think it simplifies it too far and loses the point that the action of the "electrons" is intended to harm. Which I guess my example with the ants also doesn't cover that either, since the ants don't mean to harm you by being in the kitchen? Idk metaphors are hard

I meant atheists criticize other faiths, not just paganism

1) refusal to change in face of conflicting information: there are many atheists who say they are all about facts and logic, but the second that new information comes out that contradicts or clarifies previous information, they refuse to change how they see the world to reflect that. I'm not talking about faith, to be clear, I'm talking about just basic science

2) believing their way of seeing the world makes them better than others: there are scientists of all religions, and many of the most famous discoveries in history were made by religious people, yet atheists often act as if only atheists can be smart because they see the world the "correct" way. And it's not just in understanding the world. Atheists also look down on religious people as morally interior. There are assholes who are atheists, and use their disbelief in any cosmic force as an excuse to be assholes to others. They will bitch and moan about how religious people suck for judging anyone not of the same faith, while failing to realize that they are doing the exact same thing

3) believing themselves to be above criticism and incapable of being hypocritical: case in point, your comment. It takes less than a second of thinking to come up with problems with atheists, but instead of actually taking the time to think "do atheists criticize religious people for doing the same things they do" you dismissed it as so impossible that you confidently made this condescending reply

Yeah? Something being insignificant and not having an affect on you doesn't mean you don't notice it

I think of it this way: if you are sitting in your kitchen and see an ant running across the floor, you're probably going to kill it. If you see multiple ants running across the floor, you will kill them and start looking for a nest. The ants aren't going to hurt you or really affect you, but they're annoying. Opposingly, ants in your garden can actually be really good. They aerate the soil. So if you see an ant there, you're not going to spray it with insecticide, because all the little ants running around make the garden better. Sure, you could make up for unaerated soil, maybe even aerate it yourself. But as long as the ants aren't being annoying, they might as well do it and save you the work. In a similar way, I think whatever made or governs the universe sees humans like that. Not harmful, can be useful, but can also be annoying

Honestly, as a pagan myself, I completely agree with you. I think people of all faiths, and even atheists, tend to be very critical of other faiths/beliefs doing things that they themselves do, and pagans are not exempt from that by a long shot. I think a lot of pagans have been mistreated by organized religion, so they are quick to mock it or point out every conceivable flaw with xyz faith. But then we don't take the time to self-reflect on whether we are continuing those flaws/hypocrisies, or whether our own beliefs are causing harm to others. And when flaws like this are pointed out, too often we respond with "well that's other pagans, not me" or "other faiths do that too so why single us out?" I think there are some really good pagan communities and subreddits that do self-reflect and actively try to be better, but there are also ones that refuse to listen to any criticism and end up becoming hypocritical/harmful, and they give the faith as a whole a bad name

I mean, I see it as stupid to believe one human or even a group working together are somehow stronger than the bigass space rock that has been there for longer than humans have existed, regardless of personal beliefs (with the obvious exception being if we like nuked it or something, but that's not really humans doing the damage, it's the nuke, and also I'm getting off topic). But worrying about insulting or otherwise pissing off whatever you think rules over the universe is reasonable if you believe something rules over the universe, and similar beliefs can be found in pretty much every religion. And like I get that some people are going to say that believing in any religion is stupid, but I disagree with that. I think it's just varying ways humans deal with understanding the things we know we do not understand/will never understand in our lifetimes

The problem wasn't people were scared something would happen to the moon, at least, not anyone who wasn't completely new to the concept of paganism. The concern I saw was mostly "hey, if you do that, you're going to piss off something" with something being gods/goddesses/cosmic forces depending on the exact beliefs of the person. Basically they didn't want a bunch of uppity beginners looking for clout to piss off whatever would get offended from even attempting to harm the moon, because then the whatever would probably turn around and punish humans as a whole. It's a similar idea of a kid being annoyed when other kids in their class act out, because the kid knows the teacher will punish everyone, not just the kids acting out.

The question above has an answer of "they new make soil." Just saying, this worksheet has some problems

Didn't Nero play the fiddle while Rome burned? Like, this is straight-up something that one of the guys in the running for "history's cruelest ruler" did. What the fuck

link for anyone else wondering what's happening here